Hello, Dan and all,
I don't know if this will make a difference, or if you know the legalities, but I currently am living in Ohio. You had mentioned Massachusetts, so now that I've finally gotten around to it, <apologies> there you go. I like the talking idea and then letting it just seep into the recording.
----- Original Message ----- From: "The Scarlet Wombat" <coconut@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:50 PM
Subject: [bct] Re: Noisy neighbors
Hi Mike, remember that I am not an attorney, just married to a soon to be one and have studied along with her in law school for the past 3 years.
Privacy rights are ticklish things as they are not enumerated in the Constitution. The first Supreme Court case delineating privacy rights was the famous Roe versus Wade. While I agree with the substance of the case, they had to truly torture the constitution in order to generate a privacy right that is not written in so many words.
This privacy issue goes to the heart of your question about security and surveillance. As I recall, there is a supreme court case that says it is legitimate if used for those purposes. In public places, there is generally no assumed right of privacy. The issue for recording a person from your apartment in their apartment lies mainely in the fact that it is not a public place. In many states, it would be legal to record a person's speech if they were standing next to you and talking on a cell phone, for example, as long as they could see the recorder. Some states do not even require seeing the recorder. Surveillance cameras are supposed to be visible, which is a very vague and ill defined term and covers a host of sins.
So, the very clear answer to your question is a solid maybe. But, when you begin to study the law, you soon find more issues are covered by maybe than by a definite yes or no.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/199 - Release Date: 12/13/2005